G. R. No. L.-9625. May 27, 1957

Francisca Celis  was charged  with  slander in  the Municipal Court of Manila, in a complaint  subscribed and sworn to on 7 July 1955 by Dominga B. Mutya and  filed  on 12 July  1955, committed as follows:

That on or about the 9th  day of  June, 1955, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did  then  and there willfully, unlawfully  and feloniously and publicly utter and proffer  slanderous words and expressions against the undersigned  complainant  such as “Puta ka  ina-asawa  ka ng asawa ko  sa cuarto namin.  Akala mo hindi na ako  babalik kaya ikao pumatol sa asawa ko,” and other expressions of similar import, thereby bringing the said undersigned into public contempt,  disgrace,  dishonor  and ridicule,  (Case No. D-45987.)

Upon arraignment,  the defendant  entered a plea of not guilty and after  trial the court  found her  guilty of slander as provided for  in Article 35S of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to  pay  a fine  of P100,  with  subsidiary imprisonment  in case  of insolvency,  and  the costs.  The defendant  appealed to the Court of  First Instance where it was docketed as Case  No.  32104.

The defendant was arraigned under the same  complaint  filed in the Municipal Court and again she entered a plea  of  not guilty. The  offended  party Dominga B.  Mutya  testified that on  June 9, 1955 at about 2:00 o’clock in  the  afternoon while she was in  her room at the  second floor of the house situated at 2531 E. Fernandez, Tocson, Tondo,  Manila, she was called by her landlady  Dionisia Tiongson who said that the accused was uttering bad words against her.  When  she  went down and asked  why,  the accused told  hey “Nagmamaangmangan ka pa.  Hindi  ba ina-asawa ka  ng asawa ko sa cuarto namin?  Akala mo  yata hindi na ako babalik kaya ka pumatol sa asawa ko.” These words, translated into English, mean “You pretend to be innocent.  Is it not true that my husband was having  sexual  intercourse with you  in our  bedroom?  Probably, you thought that I would not come back,  that is why  you acceded to the  desires of my husband.”  These words were uttered  publicly and  in  a  loud voice in the presence  of Letieia Torres,  Fordeliza Limjeuco and Dionisia Tiongson, the landlady of  the offended party. The  offended party answered  “Baka ikaw,” meaning “May be you fire the one.”  Whereupon, the accused  grabbed  the offended  party by the hair.  At this juncture, the husband of the  accused arrived and  separated the  combatants.  He brought  the accused to their house which was just behind  the  residence of  the  offended party. In their house, the accused kept on uttering bad and insulting words against the  offended party in the  presence of their neighbors who gathered in.  front of the  house listening to her.

At 4:00 o’clock that afternoon,  the husband of the accused who owns a jeep for hire was driving the  jeep.  Upon passing  in front of the residence of the offended party who was then in the dress shop on the first floor of the house  where she was residing,  the husband of  the accused turn his face towards the dress  shop.  He was seen by the accused who immediately shouted the following words “Talagang  hindi maaring  hindi ka  lumingon sa puta,” which words, translated into  English, mean “It  is really impossible  for  you  not to look at the prostitute.” Following the uttering  of those words, the accused went in front of the dress shop where the offended party was  and said, referring  to tlie offended party “Talagang makapal ang mukha ng babaeng iyan,” which, translated into English, mean

“That woman is really shameless.”  The offended party told her to come nearer if what she was saying was true.  The accused answered “I will and why not?  I really saw my husband having sexual intercourse with you in our room.”  These words were uttered  in the presence of many  persons.

After the accused  (the complainant)  was cross-examined, counsel for  the accused, after conferring with her, manifested that it is the desire of the accused to withdraw her plea of not guilty and to substitute it with a plea of  guilty and made a motion to that effect. The court granted the  motion and, upon re-arraignment,  the accused pleaded guilty to the  information.  (Decision of the  Court of First Instance.)

Whereupon the  Court  found  the defendant  guilty  of serious oral defamation  and sentenced her to 4 months and 1 day of  arresto mayor and  to  pay the costs.  The defendant  has  appealed,  assigning  the  following  errors claimed  to have  been committed  by  the trial court:

1. The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of tlie offense of serious oral defamation  instead of  simple defamation penalized ¦under Article 358  of the Revised Penal Code.
2. The  Court erred in imposing  on  the defendant appellant the penalty of  four months  and one day of arresto mayor.

The appellant contends  that the  complaint  subscribed and sworn to by the offended  party charged only slight or simple slander as provided for in  the last clause of article 358 of  the Revised Penal Code, because according to her it was filed in  the Municipal  Court  where  after trial she was found guilty and sentenced to pay  a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs; that  on  appeal the Court of First Instance could  not  find her guilty of  a more serious offense,  because according to her if the complaint charged a more serious crime the Municipal  Court did not have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence her for such more serious offense; and that the Court of First Instance as  an appellate  court, had jurisdiction  only to dismiss the appeal  and the complaint filed in  the Municipal Court and not to  try her  upon such complaint.

What confers jurisdiction upon a court to try,  convict and  sentence a  defendant is not  the filing of a complaint or information but the crime charged therein.  The facts pleaded in the  complaint filed  in  this  case  charged  the crime of slander as defined and punished in the first clause of article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.  The Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to try the appellant upon the complaint filed by the offended party.  Its verdict  and sentence are null  and void for  lack of jurisdiction.   The appellant should have raised in the Court of First Instance the question  of nullity of the verdict  and sentence;  but instead  of doing so she entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned and  went ahead without objection  with  the trial, and after the offended party had testified she offered to withdraw  her plea of not guilty to enter one of guilty, upon  which  the sentence appealed from was  rendered. The  trial court entered upon  and exercised its original jurisdiction when  it tried and sentenced the appellant.

There being no modifying circumstance the penalty to be imposed is in its medium period, or 1 year and 1  day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correctional; and pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty  is 1  month and 1 day of arresto  mayor and  the maximum, 1 year and 8 months of prision correctional,  and the accessories of the law. Modified as to penalty only the sentence appealed from is affirmed,  with  costs against the appellant.
 
Bengzon, Montemayor,  Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo,  Labrador,  Conception, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.